User talk:Sbaio

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Sbaio}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

2014–15 Los Angeles Lakers season:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2014–15 Los Angeles Lakers season:

Hey I added information but you deleted because you said it was a "horrendous edit" but all my information was correct. Was it pretty, no. But thats why I wanted help organizing it. I was wondering why you just deleted it. :(. I spent a lot of time on it. Lakersfan06 (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lakersfan06: You should use WP:SANDBOX before making huge edits. What you added was horrendous and it was not worth my or other editor's time in trying to fix it. I see you are new here so please first experiment and get familiar with how editing works here before continuing. In addition, you based your edit mostly on RealGM, which is not a reliable source. You should search for news articles from team or reliable new websites (ESPN, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and others). – sbaio 10:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mike Richards article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 2014 Stanley Cup playoffs article makes it quite clear that Richards and Carter are the first two players to be on two teams that came back from a 3–0 deficit. Why did you revert that? Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mk8mlyb: Your edit was reverted (same was done by another editor at Mike Bossy), because it was unsourced. It is your duty to provide sources when adding content. In addition, please read WP:DATERANGE before continuing to add stints to players' pages. You must use WP:ENDASH when listing date ranges and not hyphens. – sbaio 10:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the sentence with a source, and it was still reverted. Why is that? Also, I will try to add date-ranges in accordance with policy. Mk8mlyb (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, the edit was not reverted. I should have checked first. Nonetheless, my second point still applies. Mk8mlyb (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Montreal Canadiens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both the NHL and the Canadiens themselves often use "Montréal", in their English name. I don't get why we don't acknowledge that... –uncleben85 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncleben85: At the beginning of the Canadiens' lead sentence there is a note that quite clearly says Even in English, the French spelling Canadiens is always used instead of Canadians. The French spelling of Montréal is also sometimes used in English-speaking media. So we actually do acknowledge it. In addition, the "Montréal" spelling is only used in about 0.1% of anything posted by NHL (for example, teams page and standings) and Canadiens (some press releases), while "Montreal" is used 99.9% of the time (either by official or other media outlets). – sbaio 14:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, reading that back, I hope that didn't sound too confrontational. Thanks for the explanation. Honestly, the note didn't even register with me.--–uncleben85 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncleben85: It did not. I was surprised by your edit and thought that you probably did not see the note. Oh well, everyone makes mistakes. – sbaio 19:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anaheim Ducks article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When you reverted my edit on the Anaheim Ducks article, you stated that one source was not good enough to prove a rivalry. Well, I have found another source that states my case. Is that good enough? Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mk8mlyb: You should really start a discussion at WT:NHL and ask there, because there are editors who have access to specific websites that could show more sources. Google searches are often very limited when it comes to rivalries. – sbaio 14:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NHL list of team seasons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick heads up, it looks like there is a series of errors on the records.nhl.com site in regards to regular season goals for and against. I've confirmed the errors by looking at these links:[1] and [2]. On the records site the Islanders have 222 GF and 257 GA while on the main league standings they have 224 GF and 260 GA for the 2024–25 season. I've checked other seasons using previously printed material from the league and there are similar errors in other seasons on the records site. I also checked the playoff totals, thankfully all of those were the same. Deadman137 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deadman137: Thanks for the heads up. I see that NHL.com/stats also uses wrong statistics. – sbaio 04:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA/HABS at Trois Rivieres Lions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've reverted edits at Trois-Rivières Lions. Is there a best way to log the concerns as part of the LTA? Flibirigit (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can update WP:LTA/HABS when needed. You should ask the creator of that LTA, because I am not familiar with LTA cases. – sbaio 15:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official URL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I note that User:Iojhug updated sports related articles (including MLB, NFL, and NHL) by replacing {{Official URL}} (which include the leading "www") with URLs that don't include the "www". As I recall, you were previously involved in a similar discussion. As such, would you please remind me why Official URL is better? Thanks in advance. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Assadzadeh: I do not remember such discussion. {{Official website}} is usually used, because it is connected to Wikidata (I am not familiar with it). I have reverted that editor as no reason was given. – sbaio 15:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Offseason vs Off-season

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American sources (offseason): [3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11], [12], [13] American sources (off-season): [14] There is no consensus on Canadian sources using either, so if it's written in Canadian English, it's fine. There is my proof. Agree? Conyo14 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14: Fair enough. But I must note that the Yahoo Sports example was not written by them as it was originally written by The Hockey News, which is based in Canada. Yahoo Sports rarely write something themselves. – sbaio 17:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's good to know, thank you. Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: REVERTBAN

Re: this - while I get REVERTBAN's purpose, it almost feels like feeding the troll to let any of their changes stand, especially when their socking is so constant/unending. The message needs to be made clear that regardless of quality, their contributions are not welcome here.

Keep in mind, while their contribs were often "useful," they were initially blocked for incivility/edit warring, and the repeated blocks since have been because they decided they'd rather sock around that block instead of just waiting out the three months they were initially blocked for. Their hole's been dug too deep to return from. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well aware of that IP's blocks. But to revert IP's edits and introduce factually incorrect information like at 2025–26 Montreal Canadiens season makes you disruptive instead. Please reconsider your approach and at least look through it the next time before reverting. – sbaio 19:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, but I worry that letting their edits stand communicates to them that their contributions are accepted/appreciated. There's a reason they keep coming back. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A followup - here’s what Ponyo said after blocking the latest IP at their talk page. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: I get what Ponyo means, but I still think that edit in game log should not been reverted as I already stated above. Administrators should just block whole range, but they are hesitant to do it, because "it would be extreme". I do not see other option than a range block (guess other editors feel the same). – sbaio 03:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]